/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11891010]

>Lovecraftian
>Kafkaesque
Where's Wallacehian?

[Anonymous No.11891015]

>>11891010
I've never heard "Spielbergian" what would that eve mean?

[Anonymous No.11891019]

>>11891010
lynchian should've been the only one

[Anonymous No.11891026]

WHERE'S MY PYNCHONIAN, OED?
NOT DYING UNTIL YOU ADD ME.

[Anonymous No.11891030]

Lynch is all-style no-substance shallow obscurantist fluff for pseuds who think art is about being wowed by surreal visual effects, so probably either Finnegans Wake or (depending on your opinion, and despite having some actual content to his fluff here and there by accident) Samuel Beckett, who incidentally sucked the dick of the guy who wrote Finnegans Wake.

You could also try Pynchon, if you want middlebrow shit that pseuds force themselves to think they like because they were told it's supposed to be prestigious.

[Anonymous No.11891033]

>>11891030
You seem awfully bitter and insecure about what other people like, anon.

[Anonymous No.11891037]

>>11891030
Both LYNCHED and PYNCHED.

[Anonymous No.11891044]

>>11891030
>it's another avant-teen has strong opinions about film episode

[Anonymous No.11891050]

>>11891010

All Tarantino did was copy French New Wave and try to pass it off as his own distinct style.

[Anonymous No.11891061]

>>11891050
Also Sergio Leone.
But I wouldn't say 'copy' tho. That's just not true at all.

[Anonymous No.11891096]

>tfw no Hegelesque

[Anonymous No.11891116]

Why do they need to waste time and space putting terms like these into dictionaries? Why not just set a standard for creating a describing word from a proper noun and leave it at that? Also, Tarantino is a complete hack

[Anonymous No.11891121]

>>11891030

What do you actually like to read then? You sound like a complete pseud with no idea what he's talking about

[Anonymous No.11891123]

When are they adding "unironically"?

and wtf does "speilbergian" signify?

[Anonymous No.11891124]

>>11891050
All he did was try to elevate the worst schlock the American film.industry has ever produced. His films.are a blind celebration of consumerism with an edgy facade. Their influence is so terrible that the American film ceased to be an art form after the release of Pulp Fiction.

[Anonymous No.11891147]

>>11891030
based

[Anonymous No.11891161]

>not capeshitesquesqueessnesslessnessesque

[Anonymous No.11891163]

>>11891123
>spielbergian
>Think: exhilarating, over-the-top action sequences, childlike wonder, feel-good endings.

[Anonymous No.11891182]

>>11891030
>Lynch is all-style no-substance
If "style" is trying to actualize a feeling to its highest degree, then yes. And why wouldn't you like that? Either because you don't feel, or David Lynch is too popular for you to like, and your just being a contrarian pseud. I hate traditionalists so fucking much.

[Anonymous No.11891189]

>>11891030
Legitimately good bait? On /lit/?

[Anonymous No.11891190]

>>11891030
What the fuck is art about then, you little faggot.

[Anonymous No.11891237]

>>11891030
Say what you will about Lynch, he was the only one capable of bringing surrealism into mainstream focus, albeit in a watered down form.

[Anonymous No.11891276]

>>11891030
>not understanding that Lynch films (minus Dune) are made with the explicit aim of self-indulgence.

Mate, I'm sorry but your like that guy who claims he has developed, experimental tastes and then takes everything at face value. There's a word for this.
Psued.

[Anonymous No.11891281]

>Houellebecquesque

[Anonymous No.11891308]

>>11891010
I feel like watching other people do stuff through live streaming is Wallacechian. Like watching the IRL section on twitch for example. Just the fact that you are watching people live their lives without living yourself is kind of ironic.

[Anonymous No.11891316]

>>11891015
Being too jewish.